Politics Should Australia become a Republic?

[Number37]

There's no veto on royal assent which I've said.

Consent is granted or withheld as advised by government, for example for a private member's bill. The Crown may never formally withhold its consent contrary to government advice. This of course means the sitting Government could use the process of Consent to prevent the progress of Private Members’ Bills which it opposes. There are least five specific examples of this in 1868, 1964, 1969, 1995 and 1999.

Did you even read the article?



In one instance the Queen completely vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, a private member's bill that sought to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament.


In the pamphlet, the Parliamentary Counsel warns civil servants that if consent is not forthcoming there is a risk "a major plank of the bill must be removed".



Just for once, give the cut & paste jobs a rest and try instead some critical thought.
Just this once. You can do it.

 

[Roylion]

You said there was no divine right of Kings.

There isn't.

I never said the divine right of kings was a modern doctrine.

Then why are you equating it with the concept of a modern constitutional monarchy?

You said here that

"The King still to this day has their divine right. If they so choose, they could unwind the entire Constitution and nobody could do anything about it...except chop their head off and install a King that wouldn't be such a douche bag."

You are just making shit up because you've been found out, again. Cut and paste stuff with zero critical thought.

Ironic statement coming from you.

 

[Roylion]

Did you even read the article?

In one instance the Queen completely vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, a private member's bill that sought to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament.

I did.

Did you not read what I said about when and how the monarch's consent is given or not given?
As a bill modifying the monarch's prerogative powers, Queen's consent was required before it could be debated in Parliament. The Queen, acting upon the advice of her government, refused to grant her consent for the Bill to be debated.

I said clearly in a previous reply to you....

"Consent is granted or withheld as advised by government, for example for a private member's bill. The Crown may never formally withhold its consent contrary to government advice. This of course means the sitting Government could use the process of Consent to prevent the progress of Private Members’ Bills which it opposes. There are least five specific examples of this in 1868, 1964, 1969, 1995 and 1999."

Did you not read what I said?

In the pamphlet, the Parliamentary Counsel warns civil servants that if consent is not forthcoming there is a risk "a major plank of the bill must be removed".

"Consent is granted or withheld as advised by government, for example for a private member's bill. The Crown may never formally withhold its consent contrary to government advice."

Just for once, give the cut & paste jobs a rest and try instead some critical thought.
Just this once. You can do it.

How about for once you do some real research for once instead of just reading an article and believing everything it says? Try instead some critical thought.

Just this once. You can do it.

 

[The Punter]

For my information, does the Governor-General have the same power to, on advice from the government, refuse assent to a bill approved by the Parliament?

 

[Reg Grundy35]

the whole thing is bullshit. why would any sane person want these English people and their proxy's meddling in our affairs. Are we incapable?

 

[evolved2]

the whole thing is bullshit. why would any sane person want these English people and their proxy's meddling in our affairs. Are we incapable?

Because they make sfa difference to our way of life. Why spend money to fix something that isn't broke?

 

[Number37]

There isn't.


Then why are you equating it with the concept of a modern constitutional monarchy?

You said here that

"The King still to this day has their divine right. If they so choose, they could unwind the entire Constitution and nobody could do anything about it...except chop their head off and install a King that wouldn't be such a douche bag."


Ironic statement coming from you.

You are unable to follow basic thinking because you are incapable of any critical thought.
The King can still have the divine right of Kings AND there can still be a constitutional monarchy running the country.
That is a consequence of what happened with King John.
King John insisted that his 'divine right of a King' usurped anything and everything else.
In the end he was convinced to accede some power to what is today parliament.
King John kept his divine right.
The King still holds that divine right to this day.

There is nothing ironic in what I wrote.
It's only because the King continues to give royal assent that it works.
Like I have said to you many many times, when the time comes that a King decides that they won't give royal assent, nobody knows what will happen.
In days gone by, they would simply cut off the King's head.

Legally, parliament MUST get royal assent to pass ANY Bill. It's written in the Constitution.
There are no exceptions.
It would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL for a Bill to come into effect WITHOUT Royal assent.
If it is unconstitutional it has no effect. It cannot be enforced.

The Constitution created courts and in doing so granted those courts judicial power.
The core of judicial power is interpreting legislation.
The very first step of statutory interpretation... is it constitutional?
If it's not constitutional, it cannot be enforced.
The courts cannot, and will not, enforce a law that is unconstitutional.

Just for once think critically.
Imagine if the govt could enforce a law without it being granted royal assent.
Imagine if the courts could enforce a law that was unconstitutional.

The Constitution would be rendered completely meaningless.

 

[burge13]

the whole thing is bullshit. why would any sane person want these English people and their proxy's meddling in our affairs. Are we incapable?

When was the last time this affected you?

 

[Number37]

For my information, does the Governor-General have the same power to, on advice from the government, refuse assent to a bill approved by the Parliament?

Yes.
There is a standing parliamentary committee that looks at all legislation to determine validity.
Parliament can pass a Bill that could be invalid, for a variety of reasons.

 

[The Punter]

Yes.
There is a standing parliamentary committee that looks at all legislation to determine validity.
Parliament can pass a Bill that could be invalid, for a variety of reasons.

Governments generally don't like passing Private Members Bills, so I was wondering if all else fails they can just advise the GG to refuse assent?

Keeping in mind at all times that it is always highly unlikely that a parliament would pass a Private Members Bill.

 

[Roylion]

The King can still have the divine right of Kings AND there can still be a constitutional monarchy running the country.

There is no 'Divine right of Kings'. None at all.

That is a consequence of what happened with King John.
King John insisted that his 'divine right of a King' usurped anything and everything else.

King John was an absolute monarch. The modern constitutional British monarchy derives absolutely NO authority from any concept of Divine Right of Kings. It is an obsolete doctrine.

In the end he was convinced to accede some power to what is today parliament.
King John kept his divine right.
The King still holds that divine right to this day.

No the King does not. Where are you getting this from? Do you actually know what the doctrine of "Divine Right of Kings" is? The Divine Right of Kings asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving his right to rule directly from the will of God. That means only divine authority can judge a monarch, and that any attempt to depose, dethrone, resist or restrict their powers runs contrary to God's will.
That is clearly NOT the case for the modern constitutional monarchy. The King does not derive his right to rule from the will of God. The monarch derives his/her right to reign as head of state from various Acts of Parliament, going all the way back to Henry VII. The choice of monarch is modified and modifiable by parliamentary action.

As an example, Henry VII's title to the throne of England was confirmed by an Act of Parliament on 7th November 1485, which read.

Recognition of the Title of Henry VII

....it is ordained, established and enacted by authority of this present parliament, that the inheritances of the crowns of the realms of England and of France, ............ rest, remain and abide in the most royal person of our now sovereign lord King Henry the VIIth and in the heirs of his body..."

Another example is the The Bill of Rights 1689 which is an Act of the English Parliament, specifically the "Convention Parliament' which consisted of 513 elected Members of Parliament.

So, the monarch does not occupy the position of head of state because of some divine ordination from 'God'.

It's only because the King continues to give royal assent that it works.

The King gives royal assent because it is a vestige of the absolute monarchy of medieval and early modern times and has been allowed to continue by parliament.

Like I have said to you many many times, when the time comes that a King decides that they won't give royal assent, nobody knows what will happen.

The King is duty bound constitutionally to give royal assent to bills passed through both Houses of Parliament and on the advice of his Ministers.

In days gone by, they would simply cut off the King's head.

There is one example of this. Charles I attempted to rule without Parliament, not because he didn't give royal assent.

Legally, parliament MUST get royal assent to pass ANY Bill. It's written in the Constitution.

Yes? Where have I denied this?

There are no exceptions.
It would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL for a Bill to come into effect WITHOUT Royal assent.
If it is unconstitutional it has no effect. It cannot be enforced.

Yes? Where have I denied this?

The Constitution created courts and in doing so granted those courts judicial power.
The core of judicial power is interpreting legislation.
The very first step of statutory interpretation... is it constitutional?
If it's not constitutional, it cannot be enforced.
The courts cannot, and will not, enforce a law that is unconstitutional.

Yes? Where have I denied this?

Just for once think critically.
Imagine if the govt could enforce a law without it being granted royal assent.

What's your point? I've never denied that laws need royal assent under the Constitution. Of course they do. You're refuting a so-called argument I've never made. Sounds like a bit of a st _ _ w _ _ n to me.

Imagine if the courts could enforce a law that was unconstitutional.

The Constitution would be rendered completely meaningless.

Well...yes? And?

 

[Roylion]

For my information, does the Governor-General have the same power to, on advice from the government, refuse assent to a bill approved by the Parliament?

Yes. Refusal to assent to a Bill is only taken on advice of the monarch's ministers.

 

[The Punter]

Yes. Refusal to assent to a Bill is only taken on advice of the monarch's ministers.

So technically, the parliament, made up of the people's house and the states' house, can pass a bill and the government, apparently still possessing the confidence of the people's house, can stop it becoming law after it is passed by the parliament?

Despite being highly, highly unlikely to ever happen, I can see why one would have a problem with that situation being technically possible.

 

[Roylion]

So technically, the parliament, made up of the people's house and the states' house, can pass a bill and the government, apparently still possessing the confidence of the people's house, can stop it becoming law after it is passed by the parliament?

Despite being highly, highly unlikely to ever happen, I can see why one would have a problem with that situation being technically possible.

Yes, it is technically possible.

The monarch or the Governor-General cannot - just because they want to - refuse to grant Royal Assent; in other words exercise a personal regal / vice regal veto, as some appear to be claiming.

This may be a possibility with a President too, depending on the codification of powers of the President in any republic.

 

[The Punter]

Yes, it is technically possible.

The monarch or the Governor-General cannot - just because they want to - refuse to grant Royal Assent; in other words exercise a personal regal / vice regal veto, as some appear to be claiming.

This may be a possibility with a President too, depending on the codification of powers of the President in any republic.

Just to be clear, I was suggesting no such thing (bolded). I was enquiring about the possibility of a government losing a vote on the floor of the HoR then having their view prevail because they can advise the GG to kybosh the law despite it just being passed by the parliament.

I would assume that the reserve powers, which the GG has (and my understanding is that the King does not in the UK) do not apply to refusing to grant royal assent.

 

[Number37]

Governments generally don't like passing Private Members Bills, so I was wondering if all else fails they can just advise the GG to refuse assent?

Keeping in mind at all times that it is always highly unlikely that a parliament would pass a Private Members Bill.

For each Bill,
The AG advises the GG whether they think the Bill is kosher, or not.
The AG's advice would be purely from a legal perspective, starting with "Is it Constitutional?"

In theory the govt could advise the GG to not assent.
Doing so would open up a can of worms that would most likely lead to an immediate election.
A govt attempting to circumvent the Constitution by advising the GG to not assent to a Bill because they don't like it isn't something that any govt would attempt to do.

 

[Number37]

There is no 'Divine right of Kings'. None at all.


King John was an absolute monarch. The modern constitutional British monarchy derives absolutely NO authority from any concept of Divine Right of Kings. It is an obsolete doctrine.

Every King or Queen is granted a divine right from God in a religious ceremony.

I never said that anybody derives anything from the divine right of Kings other than the King holding a divine right, as King.
I am not sure why you find it so difficult to understand that the King gets their authority from God.
That is how they are crowned.

Do you know what the Liber Regalis is?
It details the entire coronation process, which is a religious ceremony.
During the Holy Communion the King gets annointed by the Archbishop.
The King also makes an oath to God.

The divine right of a King still exists today.
The same coronation ceremony has been used since 1066.

 

[Roylion]

Every King or Queen is granted a divine right from God in a religious ceremony.

You clearly don't understand the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings.

The religious ceremony is merely ceremonial. The King is not granted extra powers to rule because of it

I'll repeat.

The Divine Right of Kings doctrine asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving his right to rule directly from the will of God. That means only divine authority can judge a monarch, and that any attempt to depose, dethrone, resist or restrict their powers runs contrary to God's will.

That's what is was.

I never said that anybody derives anything from the divine right of Kings other than the King holding a divine right, as King.

You are incorrect. As to who is King including the method of hereditary succession, is derived from various Acts of Parliament. The monarch acts under the Constitution.

I am not sure why you find it so difficult to understand that the King gets their authority from God.

The monarch in a constitutional monarchy does NOT get his / her authority from 'God'. Why are you even arguing this? it is patently incorrect.

That is how they are crowned.

Do you know what the Liber Regalis is?
It details the entire coronation process, which is a religious ceremony.

It is a religious ceremony. But partaking in that religious ceremony does NOT convey some divine right to rule where the monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving his right to rule directly from the will of God. The monarch is subject to an earthly authority. That 'earthly authority' determines who is the monarch, the method of succession to the throne, the restrictions placed on the monarch's actions and even what the King must believe in and until recently who he can marry.

During the Holy Communion the King gets annointed by the Archbishop.
The King also makes an oath to God.

So what. That does not mean that the monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving his/her right to rule directly from the will of God. That's what 'divine right of kings' is.

The divine right of a King still exists today.

No it does not. See above.

The same coronation ceremony has been used since 1066.

So what. Britain is now a constitutional monarchy, not an absolute one, as it was in 1066.

 

[Number37]

You clearly don't understand the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings.

The religious ceremony is merely ceremonial. The King is not granted extra powers to rule because of it

I'll repeat.

The Divine Right of Kings doctrine asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving his right to rule directly from the will of God. That means only divine authority can judge a monarch, and that any attempt to depose, dethrone, resist or restrict their powers runs contrary to God's will.

That's what is was.


You are incorrect. As to who is King including the method of hereditary succession, is derived from various Acts of Parliament. The monarch acts under the Constitution.


The monarch in a constitutional monarchy does NOT get his / her authority from 'God'. Why are you even arguing this? it is patently incorrect.



It is a religious ceremony. But partaking in that religious ceremony does NOT convey some divine right to rule where the monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving his right to rule directly from the will of God. The monarch is subject to an earthly authority. That 'earthly authority' determines who is the monarch, the method of succession to the throne, the restrictions placed on the monarch's actions and even what the King must believe in and until recently who he can marry.




So what. That does not mean that the monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving his/her right to rule directly from the will of God. That's what 'divine right of kings' is.


No it does not. See above.


So what. Britain is now a constitutional monarchy, not an absolute one, as it was in 1066.

One minute you say there is no such thing as the divine right of Kings.
Nek minnit
You're pretending to be an expert on it.

F
M
D


When Charlie got crowned it had F-all to do with the Constitution.
When he was crowned nobody said "in the name of the Constitution ye shall be King".


The Constitution grants the power to the monarch, to say yay or nay, to each and every piece of legislation.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says the monarch MUST say yay.
There is nothing stopping the monarch from saying nay.

I asked you 15 posts ago to point us to the part of the Constitution that says the monarch must say yay.
You still haven't done so.
Instead you've done what you always do, post a whole heap of crap you cut and paste, without ever engaging in any critical thought.

Why is a monarch granted the power to say yay or nay?
Again, I will repeat.
Back in the day, King John wanted to exert complete authority over the people. He tried to tax the rich barons. The rich barons got the people to support their cause against King John, in exchange for the people getting out from under the King's supreme authority. The people got out from under the King's supreme authority by giving King John an ultimatum, give us rights or we will chop your f'ing head off. King John agreed to the grant the people some rights by agreeing to the terms of the Magna Carta.
The part where King John ceded some of his power, via the Magna Carta, in time became what we today know as parliament/the judiciary/the executive.
All very basic history.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Because they make sfa difference to our way of life. Why spend money to fix something that isn't broke?

When was the last time this affected you?

today. I am embarrassed to have some pom dickhead on our coins.

 

[burge13]

today. I am embarrassed to have some pom dickhead on our coins.

You need to get out more then tbh. Or use a card instead of coins

 

[Roylion]

One minute you say there is no such thing as the divine right of Kings.
Nek minnit
You're pretending to be an expert on it.

What an illogical statement.

I know what it is, even though it does not exist in a modern constitutional monarchy.

The 'Divine Right of Kings' doctrine (which I have already explained) plays no part in the modern constitutional monarchy of Britain. All a coronation is a ritual investing a monarch with regal power. A monarch succeeding to the throne by right of heredity does so immediately on the death (or abdication) of their predecessor and therefore can exercise the regal power the moment they accede to the throne. In other words in the modern constitutional monarchy of Britain, the Divine Right of Kings doctrine does not exist.

The Divine Right of Kings doctrine asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving his right to rule directly from the will of God. For the British monarch this is defintely not the case.

When Charlie got crowned it had F-all to do with the Constitution.
When he was crowned nobody said "in the name of the Constitution ye shall be King".

That has nothing to do with the 'Divine Right of Kings' doctrine. The Divine Right of Kings asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving his right to rule directly from the will of God.

That is NOT the case,

The Constitution grants the power to the monarch, to say yay or nay, to each and every piece of legislation.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says the monarch MUST say yay.

It is the constitutional duty of the monarch to grant royal assent if the Bill passes both Houses of Parliament and the monarch is advised to do so by his ministers. Royal assent has not been refused since 1708.

I asked you 15 posts ago to point us to the part of the Constitution that says the monarch must say yay.

The UK has no written constitution. Constitutional experts suggest the monarch's / governor-general's granting of royal assent is now limited to due process and is essentially a certification that a bill has passed all established parliamentary procedures.

It is not a royal veto.

It is an established constitutional convention that the Royal Assent is not withheld from Bills which have been passed by both Houses of Parliament.

Conventions are rules of good political behaviour. To count as a convention, they must be generally accepted to be binding. They operate to reduce the broad and potentially dictatorial powers of the head of state and other governmental figures and bodies, are considered essential to this end, and have been argued by a number of scholars, such as Dr. Léonid Sirot, Associate Professor at the Reading Law School, to be part of constitutional law, particularly in a country with an unwritten constitution such as the UK. Conventions are themselves the product of law.

And if a convention is not legally binding, who enforces it or why is it obeyed?

Why is a monarch granted the power to say yay or nay?
Again, I will repeat.

See above.

Back in the day, King John wanted to exert complete authority over the people. He tried to tax the rich barons. The rich barons got the people to support their cause against King John,

The rich barons did no such thing. They did not get "the people" to support their cause against King John.

in exchange for the people getting out from under the King's supreme authority.

That is not correct. The Magna Carta put in writing the principle that the king and his government was not above the law.

The people got out from under the King's supreme authority by giving King John an ultimatum, give us rights or we will chop your f'ing head off.

That is completely made up by you.

King John agreed to the grant the people some rights by agreeing to the terms of the Magna Carta.

I've explained what the Magna Carta is. The Magna Carta put in writing the principle that the king and his government was not above the law. It was about the medieval relationship between the monarch and the barons, rather than the rights of ordinary people.

The part where King John ceded power, via the Magna Carta, in time became what we today know as parliament/the judiciary/the executive.

That is not correct. Parliament is more closely related to the Curia Regis, which existed before Maga Carta which in turn evolved from the Witan.

"The Articles of the Barons" (of which the 'Magna Carta' was the formal document) was by a group of powerful barons who could no longer stand King John's failed leadership and despotic rule. It was written to protect baronial (i.e the nobles) rights and church rights. The "Great Charter" promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons.

All very basic history.

Most of which you've got wrong. You suck at history.

 

[Number37]

What an illogical statement.

I know what it is, even though it does not exist in a modern constitutional monarchy.

The 'Divine Right of Kings' doctrine (which I have already explained) plays no part in the modern constitutional monarchy of Britain. All a coronation is a ritual investing a monarch with regal power. A monarch succeeding to the throne by right of heredity does so immediately on the death (or abdication) of their predecessor and therefore can exercise the regal power the moment they accede to the throne. In other words in the modern constitutional monarchy of Britain, the Divine Right of Kings doctrine does not exist.

The Divine Right of Kings doctrine asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving his right to rule directly from the will of God. For the British monarch this is defintely not the case.




That has nothing to do with the 'Divine Right of Kings' doctrine. The Divine Right of Kings asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving his right to rule directly from the will of God.

That is NOT the case,


It is the constitutional duty of the monarch to grant royal assent if the Bill passes both Houses of Parliament and the monarch is advised to do so by his ministers. Royal assent has not been refused since 1708.


The UK has no written constitution. Constitutional experts suggest the monarch's / governor-general's granting of royal assent is now limited to due process and is essentially a certification that a bill has passed all established parliamentary procedures.

It is not a royal veto.

It is an established constitutional convention that the Royal Assent is not withheld from Bills which have been passed by both Houses of Parliament.

Conventions are rules of good political behaviour. To count as a convention, they must be generally accepted to be binding. They operate to reduce the broad and potentially dictatorial powers of the head of state and other governmental figures and bodies, are considered essential to this end, and have been argued by a number of scholars, such as Dr. Léonid Sirot, Associate Professor at the Reading Law School, to be part of constitutional law, particularly in a country with an unwritten constitution such as the UK. Conventions are themselves the product of law.

And if a convention is not legally binding, who enforces it or why is it obeyed?


See above.



The rich barons did no such thing. They did not get "the people" to support their cause against King John.



That is not correct. The Magna Carta put in writing the principle that the king and his government was not above the law.


That is completely made up by you.


I've explained what the Magna Carta is. The Magna Carta put in writing the principle that the king and his government was not above the law. It was about the medieval relationship between the monarch and the barons, rather than the rights of ordinary people.


That is not correct. Parliament is more closely related to the Curia Regis, which existed before Maga Carta which in turn evolved from the Witan.

"The Articles of the Barons" (of which the 'Magna Carta' was the formal document) was by a group of powerful barons who could no longer stand King John's failed leadership and despotic rule. It was written to protect baronial (i.e the nobles) rights and church rights. The "Great Charter" promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons.




Most of which you've got wrong. You suck at history.

You are the epitome of Dunning-Kruger.

At the most recent coronation the King was crowned after making an oath to God.
He made an oath to God because God gives him the power to be King.
It ain't the Constitution that gives the King the power to be King.
Basic logic should tell you, that the King's power therefore comes from God, not the Constitution.
The King thereby has a divine right to do whatever the F he wants.
He chooses to cede power to Parliament to govern.
That does not mean he gives up his divine right.... because he is still King.
The King still rules, the parliament governs.
That's why the parliament goes to the King to get royal assent for laws that the parliament passes.


You are just picking random things to try to dig out of the hole you dug for yourself.
Sure, there were systems of government before Magna Carta.
No the rights in the Magna Carta did not just apply to barons. It applied to everyone.
For example: The Magna Carta said that nobody should be imprisoned without the opportunity to go to court to prove their innocence. This came to be called the writ of Habeas Corpus. The Writ of Habeas Corpus didn't exist until 1660-ish. Between the Magna Carta and 1660-ish the writ of Habeas Corpus existed,just by a different name, and it still exists today.


Every time we have these discussions you just prove that you do suck at history.

 

[Roylion]

At the most recent coronation the King was crowned after making an oath to God.
He made an oath to God because God gives him the power to be King.

That is absolutely not correct. Where are you getting this information from? It is blatantly incorrect. And I've explained why it is incorrect.

Parliament determines who is the monarch, the method of succession to the throne, the restrictions placed on the monarch's actions and even what the King must believe in and until recently who he/she can marry. There are all sort of restrictions placed on the monarch who must act under the Constitution. The monarch can't do whatever they like.

It ain't the Constitution that gives the King the power to be King.

Acts of Parliament determine who is to be monarch and what powers he/she has. I've given you plenty of examples.

Basic logic should tell you, that the King's power therefore comes from God, not the Constitution.

The monarch's powers come from Acts of Parliament. Read the Bill of Rights of 1689, read the 1701 Act of Settlement. The King wasn't even allowed to leave the United Kingdom between 1701-1716 without the consent of parliament.

The King thereby has a divine right to do whatever the F he wants.

No he does not. Where do you get this rubbish from? Between 1701 and 2015, the monarch couldn't marry a Roman Catholic and remain the monarch. The monarch cannot be a Roman Catholic. That's not doing "whatever the f he wants."

He chooses to cede power to Parliament to govern.

No he does not. The monarch's rights and actions are controlled by Acts of Parliament.

The monarchy itself can be abolished by Parliament and that has already been done once.

In Australia, the monarchy could be abolished by passing an Act of Parliament putting a referendum with a proposed republican model and receiving the approval of the people via a referendum. In the UK Parliament can abolish the monarchy overnight, if it wishes to, simply by an Act of Parliament. The monarch cannot abolish Parliament.

That does not mean he gives up his divine right.... because he is still King.
The King still rules, the parliament governs.

The King does not rule. The King reigns. There is a difference.

That's why the parliament goes to the King to get royal assent for laws that the parliament passes.

Royal assent is given by the UK's Head of State as per tradition and custom. Under an absolute monarch in the 11th-14th centuries, legislative power was exercised by the monarch acting on the advice of the Curia Regis.

No the rights in the Magna Carta did not just apply to barons. It applied to everyone.

The rights applied to the Barons and Church. "Freemen" was not the majority of the population such as villeins and serfs.

For example: The Magna Carta said that nobody should be imprisoned without the opportunity to go to court to prove their innocence.

The Magna Carta is not about the rights of the people. The reference to 'freeman' essentially referred to landowners those that held freehold and collectively was less than 10% of the population. It was to provide for the trial of a feudal landowner vassal by his peers in the court of their liege lord. In other words no freeman should be sanctioned except by a legitimate court of peers and by the law of the land.

Habeus corpus is common law. It originally stems from the Assize of Clarendon in 1166...not the Magna Carta of 1215. The Assize of Clarendon was a re-issuance of rights during the reign of Henry II. The Magna Carta merely restated the common law principles that preceded it. According to Robert Walker in his work "Habeas Corpus Writ of Liberty: English and American Origins and Development", the first recorded appearance of habeus corpus was in 1199.

Every time we have these discussions you just prove that you do suck at history.

Some of your claims about history are just laughable. An example..

"The people got out from under the King's supreme authority by giving King John an ultimatum, give us rights or we will chop your f'ing head off."

That didn't happen. You just made it up, based on your garbled, skewed view of the Magna Carta and the events of 1215.

 

[barreness]

When was the last time this affected you?

Imagine being so cucked that you think the fact that no Australian can ever be head of our state is ineffectual